Chamber
Plenary, 07 Jan 2010
07 Jan 2010 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Although the Finance Committee considers the financial implications of all legislation, the committee has never before been designated the lead committee on a bill since the establishment of the Parliament in 1999. In what is therefore a unique position for a convener of the Finance Committee, I am pleased to speak on the committee's behalf in this stage 1 debate on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill.
This wide-ranging bill touches on the remits of a number of different committees and is a good example of Parliament's committees working together by contributing their individual specialised areas of expertise.
While the Finance Committee took the lead role in examining the cross-cutting issues in the bill, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee examined the provisions relating to Scottish Natural Heritage; the Health and Sport Committee considered the provisions relating to the care commission and care services, as well as the new health scrutiny body, health improvement Scotland; and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee examined part 3, on creative Scotland, and provisions relating to social work. The committees also considered duties of co-operation and joint inspections and commented on the order-making powers in part 2.
I will leave the representatives of the secondary committees to detail their recommendations on those areas, and I thank them for their detailed scrutiny of significant parts of the bill.
The Finance Committee was aware that the bill is only one element of the Scottish Government's programme for the reform of public services. We sought to place the bill in a wider context that includes issues that were being actively scrutinised elsewhere, such as single outcome agreements and the Scotland performs programme.
The wider programme for simplifying the public sector landscape is clearly linked to parts 1 and 2 of the bill. The committee heard a range of evidence about the simplification programme. Although I will not pre-empt discussions on our future work programme, the issue of the future shape of public services during a continuing squeeze on all budgets has exercised us throughout this parliamentary session and will continue to be a major focus for the Finance Committee.
Part 2 proved to be by far the most contentious area of the bill during our stage 1 scrutiny. The cabinet secretary has already given his initial response to our detailed recommendations on it, both in correspondence and in his opening remarks today. However, large parts of our evidence taking and our report were focused on the implications of those powers.
Part 2 contains the public functions power, in section 10, and the burdens power, in section 13. It is important to distinguish between those two powers because although many of the safeguards in the bill apply to both of them, their purposes and possible implications are markedly different.
The section 10 power to
"improve the exercise of public functions"
certainly exercised our witnesses and the committee to the greatest extent. Many of my comments on procedure and other safeguards apply to both powers.
On the safeguards that are applied by the bill, I express the committee's thanks to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its detailed and thoughtful work and thorough recommendations. We have already heard from the cabinet secretary that he plans to bring forward a range of amendments to address our concerns in this area, and I thank him for the early notice of his intentions.
A major area of debate for the committee was the list of bodies in schedule 3 to the bill, to which both the powers in part 2 will apply. A range of bodies listed in the schedule, their stakeholders and other experts expressed concern over the potential impact on the independence of some of the bodies. Again, the cabinet secretary has already outlined his intention to come back at stage 2 with significant changes to address the committee's concerns.
This wide-ranging bill touches on the remits of a number of different committees and is a good example of Parliament's committees working together by contributing their individual specialised areas of expertise.
While the Finance Committee took the lead role in examining the cross-cutting issues in the bill, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee examined the provisions relating to Scottish Natural Heritage; the Health and Sport Committee considered the provisions relating to the care commission and care services, as well as the new health scrutiny body, health improvement Scotland; and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee examined part 3, on creative Scotland, and provisions relating to social work. The committees also considered duties of co-operation and joint inspections and commented on the order-making powers in part 2.
I will leave the representatives of the secondary committees to detail their recommendations on those areas, and I thank them for their detailed scrutiny of significant parts of the bill.
The Finance Committee was aware that the bill is only one element of the Scottish Government's programme for the reform of public services. We sought to place the bill in a wider context that includes issues that were being actively scrutinised elsewhere, such as single outcome agreements and the Scotland performs programme.
The wider programme for simplifying the public sector landscape is clearly linked to parts 1 and 2 of the bill. The committee heard a range of evidence about the simplification programme. Although I will not pre-empt discussions on our future work programme, the issue of the future shape of public services during a continuing squeeze on all budgets has exercised us throughout this parliamentary session and will continue to be a major focus for the Finance Committee.
Part 2 proved to be by far the most contentious area of the bill during our stage 1 scrutiny. The cabinet secretary has already given his initial response to our detailed recommendations on it, both in correspondence and in his opening remarks today. However, large parts of our evidence taking and our report were focused on the implications of those powers.
Part 2 contains the public functions power, in section 10, and the burdens power, in section 13. It is important to distinguish between those two powers because although many of the safeguards in the bill apply to both of them, their purposes and possible implications are markedly different.
The section 10 power to
"improve the exercise of public functions"
certainly exercised our witnesses and the committee to the greatest extent. Many of my comments on procedure and other safeguards apply to both powers.
On the safeguards that are applied by the bill, I express the committee's thanks to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its detailed and thoughtful work and thorough recommendations. We have already heard from the cabinet secretary that he plans to bring forward a range of amendments to address our concerns in this area, and I thank him for the early notice of his intentions.
A major area of debate for the committee was the list of bodies in schedule 3 to the bill, to which both the powers in part 2 will apply. A range of bodies listed in the schedule, their stakeholders and other experts expressed concern over the potential impact on the independence of some of the bodies. Again, the cabinet secretary has already outlined his intention to come back at stage 2 with significant changes to address the committee's concerns.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5429, in the name of John Swinney, on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):
SNP
I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. The Government came into office with one overarching purpose: to foc...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Does the minister accept that it is not constitutionally appropriate for a Government minister such as him to make changes to parliamentary appointees? That ...
John Swinney:
SNP
I am not sure whether Mr Rumbles has seen the text of the letter that I issued to the convener of the Finance Committee. However, it explains some of the cha...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
That is the fundamental problem that we face in Parliament today. The minister apparently does not accept that it is not up to him or the Government to initi...
John Swinney:
SNP
Mr Rumbles is perhaps making a point about parliamentary officers and individual ombudsmen. If I were to follow the logic of his argument, Government would b...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
No, the cabinet secretary misunderstands the point.
John Swinney:
SNP
No, it is Mr Rumbles who misunderstands. My point is that the Government seeks the power to initiate changes to primary legislation through the route of seco...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab) rose—
Lab
John Swinney:
SNP
That act enshrined the ability to change primary legislation by secondary legislation. There is a separate point about parliamentary bodies.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
That is the point that I am making.
John Swinney:
SNP
That is fine. I am just coming on to that point. If Mr Rumbles would listen to what I am saying, we might get somewhere. I will give way, though, to Jackie B...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the legislation to which he referred does not alter the function or, indeed, the existence of public bodies in the ...
John Swinney:
SNP
Of course it is a precedent, because it allows secondary legislation to be used to change primary legislation by order. What I have announced today and share...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD):
LD
Can the cabinet secretary point members to any part of the corporate body's constitution or standing orders that gives it any powers to deal with policy matt...
John Swinney:
SNP
I have detected Parliament's concern at different stages—I certainly experienced it in opposition when I was a member of the Finance Committee prior to the 2...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) rose—
LD
John Swinney:
SNP
Wait a minute. That is precisely what I am saying. I am putting in place a power of initiation for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and reinforcing ...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
Does the cabinet secretary accept that the issue is not so much the initiation power, although that is important, as the substantial and widespread nature of...
John Swinney:
SNP
Those bodies are creations of Parliament, and Parliament could decide that it wished to change them. It has the right to do that. I am in no way compromising...
Jeremy Purvis rose—
LD
John Swinney:
SNP
I had better proceed to other subjects and address other ground that the bill covers.Crucially, the Government proposes a number of changes that will strengt...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
Will the cabinet secretary explain one thing? If he is willing to go through the super-affirmative procedure and to take time to allow committees to take evi...
John Swinney:
SNP
The problem is that the issues can never be taken forward in primary legislation in the fashion that Mr Harvie has characterised. Mr Harvie should consider t...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The cabinet secretary should begin to wind up.
John Swinney:
SNP
It would be helpful if the Presiding Officer gave me guidance on when I am due to complete my remarks.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
You may have another couple of minutes, given the number of times that you have given way.
John Swinney:
SNP
I will treat Jackie Baillie to some more rhetoric and briefly cover some other provisions in the bill, which will also be covered by my colleagues in the clo...
Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP):
SNP
Although the Finance Committee considers the financial implications of all legislation, the committee has never before been designated the lead committee on ...